Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 ([e-mail] from September 2012)

[David Sheets <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:59 PM, John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> David Sheets scripsit:
>
>> Anne's current draft increases the space of valid addresses. This
>> isn't obvious as Anne's draft lacks a grammar and URI component
>> alphabets. You support Anne's draft and its philosophy, therefore you
>> are saying the space of valid addresses should be expanded.
>
> Before confusion is worse confounded, Anne's draft does not extend the space
> of valid addresses, but rather provides processing for both valid and
> invalid addresses.  As such, it extends the space of what may be called
> processable or usable addresses.

In the version of the spec that I am reading
<http://url.spec.whatwg.org/>, I see definition of an "invalid flag"
<http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#invalid-flag> and a "valid attribute"
<http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-url-valid>.

It would appear that <##> is a valid WHATWGRL but an invalid URI reference.

Under WHATWGRL processing (and as is found in extant browsers), <##>
is handled as it is literally written and not through coercion to a
"valid" address from a "usable" address.

Given these facts, I don't understand how Anne's spec doesn't extend
the space of valid addresses. If the spec says that input is output
without modification and that input is outside of the STD 66 space,
doesn't that expand the space of valid addresses?

WHATWGRLs with "[" and "]" in path, query, and fragment are allowed as well.

David